Re: Virgin Stickers >
 

Companies tend not to maintain brandnames that compete with their other brands. They may have different brands for different areas of the same market (for instance, Matsu****a own Panasonic, Teac, Technics and Tascam - all in the hifi business, but all selling to different areas of the market)
But Virgin Mobile is in the Comms industry, as is NTL.

Virgin started in the Entertainment industry, and to a large extent, still is. As is NTL.

Still, not being in the industry hasn't stopped Virgin before. Hence Virgin Airlines, Virgin Finance, Virgin Cola, Virgin Perfumes etc

Re: ALL Virgin / NTL merger discussion
 

but can red virgin make the red button on ntl work ?

Re: Virgin Stickers >
 

Of course they wont, ntl/TW will take on the Virgin Brand in Jan 2007 and only from then forward will the Virgin brand be put on equipment and letterheads etc.

There will certainly be no retrospective re-branding.

I can't fathom any reason whatsoever why anyone could be against this move, a strong company to take on Sky and BT and everyone else can only be good for the consumer.

I think it's great. The only downside is the impending redundancies

Re: ALL Virgin / NTL merger discussion
 

They made a big issue of the quad-play services of TV, phone, internet and mobile. You cannot bundle all that together if they have different company names!

Re: Virgin Stickers >
 

I am against it because it cost money and I hate large companies, since the telewest merger their is already signs of things that occur at monopolistic companies and who is to say the same wont happen with the virgin merger.

BT and Sky are not huge forces that need mergers to compete against, merging with virgin eg. does nothing to increase ntl's national coverage but does create problems in that once again their will be staff changes restructuring and merging of systems the company is never settled down.

Who is to say customers in the future that refuse to buy mobile services and not have quadrupled play will then be penalised for not having full takeup and as such pay more for it, like now if you dont have triple play.

Re: Virgin Stickers >
 

No doubt you bank with your sweet shop, and drive a pony and trap, you obtain your gas and electric from a bloke up the road and do all your shopping at a country market and refuse to watch BBC and ITV


like what?

and who is to say it will, whatever it is you're talking about.

Ha, BT the biggest monopoly there was, and even after the merger they're still much, much larger. Sky still control nearly all of the programming and fix the price accordingly.

[/quote] merging with virgin eg. does nothing to increase ntl's national coverage [/quote] Er I think you'll find it nearly doubles it.

economies of scale to help save the money you hate them spending

Then that will be ntls mistake as there are plenty of other providers out there

Re: Virgin Stickers >
 

Are you talking about the same BT and Sky the rest of us are?

Sky and BT both have near 100% coverage of the population, a lot greater coverage than the combined cable companies.

Sky also have access to an awful lot of facilities and money, through their parent corporation, News Corp (which also owns various media companies all over the world, including Fox in the USA). News Corp has shown it is willing to take massive losses from a subsidiary just to get it's name established in that area.

I personally think Cable needs all the help it can get to compete against them.

Re: ALL Virgin / NTL merger discussion
 

There is also the fact that sky uplink not only their own programming but also a fair few other channels as well, which ntl are in effect distributing for sky on the cable network

Re: ALL Virgin / NTL merger discussion
 

The coverage is ntl's choice.

900 million for expansion, or acquisition of company, they made their choice.

BT I think are no longer dominant in the telephone sector, landlines are a dying sector and even those with landlines have the option of 3rd party providers to reduce their call costs, some people think including myself that ntl/telewest now need some form of regulating been the ONLY cable company in the uk and having a monopoly on cable telecom services.

On sky please explain to me how buying a cellphone company stops a tv company monopoly?

Things changed since telewest merger that monopolising companies tend to do -

Above inflation price rises
New charges introduced for things that used to be free
Less care for customers (removal of 0800 support) (removal of directline to retentions)

Re: ALL Virgin / NTL merger discussion
 

Good articles at the Telegragh on the merger.

In short - Take up all the 4play services and you'll get free tv service.

More at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...ixcitytop.html
and at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...09/ixcity.html

Re: ALL Virgin / NTL merger discussion
 

I have too agree. NTL/TW's footprint decreases every year, not increases. Here in the South there is building everywhere, NTL doesn't lay ducts to these sites, so our "percentage cover" drop every year

Re: ALL Virgin / NTL merger discussion
 

Construction is very, very expensive. Especially as you can only expect around 30% take up.

That's why ntl and TW will not be undertaking any major build. I believe there's some build to be done in Liverpool and London but that's it.

But the customer base is expanding through LLU. So there's no need to have a large construction programme

Re: ALL Virgin / NTL merger discussion
 

Like Ntl didn't know that when they first went on a spending spree buying cable franchises.

Much easier to get the cheque book out and buy another company than to put a spade to the ground!

Re: ALL Virgin / NTL merger discussion
 

But LLU is twisted copper, and very vey old twisted pair to boot, and very limited!
Far better to build ya own network, than jump on someone elses, ala Virgin, who dont own a network!!

Re: ALL Virgin / NTL merger discussion
 

Maybe but you can still get DTV. broadband etc from a twisted pair.

It's much, much cheaper to bang some equipment into a BT exchange then start digging up the roads again.

It may be better, but it's not cheaper. There just isn't the money available for large construction projects